Tag election cheating

SC Election Excellence Forum

Some of our team members will be speaking at the SC Election Excellence Forum on March 26th at the Yorktown at Patriot’s Point in Charleston from 1PM to 5 PM. There will be a social with hors d’oeuvres afterwards and special guest speaker Lara Logan.

The afternoon will feature election integrity discussion by Col. Phil Waldron, Jim Marchant, Mark Cook, Steve Hertzberg and locals Lauren Martel who is running for AG and Keith Blandford running for SC House District 1. We will also hear from cyber expert Burl Smith and Michael Reed publisher of the The Standard SC.

We are excited to discuss the efforts in our state and share with some of our friends in other states what is happening in their neck of the woods.  Also we will cover our canvassing findings and include a 10-point action plan that you can implement to move our country in the right direction.

We hope to see you there!

Here is the agenda as it stands now.

1:00 – 1:10(10 mins)Opening Remarks
IntroductionKeith Blandford
InvocationKyle Kasten
Pledge of AllegianceKeith Blandford
Star Bangled BannerThe Harris Sisters
1:10 – 3:05(115 mins)Session One
1:10 – 1:15(05 mins)IntroductionKeith Blandford
1:15 – 1:45(30 mins)Election Margin of ErrorLaura Scharr/Cryste Carroll
1:45 – 2:15(30 mins)Electronic Voting MachinesBurl Smith
2:15 – 2:45(30 mins)Public PerceptionMichael Reed, Standard SC 
2:45 – 3:05(20 mins)SC Action StepsLaura Scharr
3:05 – 3:55(50 mins)Session Two
3:05 – 3:10(05 mins)IntroductionKeith Blandford
3:10 – 3:15(15 mins)AG’s Role in Fair ElectionsLauren Martel, AG Candidate
3:15 – 3:40(15 mins)SOS Candidate (NV)Jim Marchant (NV)
3:40 – 3:55(15 mins)Next StepsCol. Phil Waldron
3:55 – 5:00(65 mins)Session Three
3:55 – 4:00(05 mins)IntroductionKeith Blandford
4:00 – 5:00(60 mins)Elections, A 20 Yr. PerspectiveSteven Hertzberg
5:00 – 5:15(15 mins)Successful Strategies for Election Integrity SuccessJim Marchant/Mark Cook
5:15 – 5:20(05 mins)Closing RemarksKeith Blandford
5:20 – 7:00(100 mins)Social Gathering                                                  
Guest of HonorLara Logan
Q & A Time
Hors D’oeuvres 

You can register here:

https://accfei.org/events/southcarolina-mar-2022/

The live feed will be available at 1 PM at www.accfei.org

H 3444: Just Say NO

This is a guest blog by one of our team members Lucy Twinkle

“It’s the best we can do for an ‘election integrity’ bill during this session,” is the current mantra of SC Statehouse legislators.

But is it?

The SCGOP thinks so: “This strong bill would require all county election commissions to operate the same way, ensuring votes in Lancaster County are handled the same way as votes in Beaufort County, and prohibit drop boxes, expand the methods of required post-election audits…” Sounds good, but the SCGOP fails to mention the more far-reaching, even draconian, portions of the bill.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this bill is to CENTRALIZE AND INCREASE THE POWERS of the State Election Commission, whose members are appointed by the Governor, without holding the Commission accountable for its performance. This effort is occurring at a time, following the 2020 contentious election, when many experts are advocating DECENTRALIZING election powers, preferring to push control to the counties and precinct-level, closer to the people who vote. Plus, there is evidence that the SEC is not doing its job now, especially with respect to not cleaning up our dirty, bloated voter rolls. Current statute requires the SEC “to maintain a complete master file of all qualified electors by county and by precincts,” but there seems to be no mechanism for enforcement.

Do you remember the Credit Default Swaps that nearly tanked the economy during the 2008 financial meltdown, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression?

These “swaps” were forms of derivatives created by financial institutions to shelter bundles of subprime mortgages underneath the wrapping of triple-A-rated securities. What appeared to be a hot investment was really rotten at the core. Glorious on the outside, poop on the inside.

Think of H. 3444 as a REVERSE Credit Default Swap. Gold on the inside, poop on the outside.

THE GOLD: the bill outlaws ballot boxes. It also prohibits any county board of elections from accepting or using private funds to conduct elections. This would keep Mark Zuckerberg from pumping his money into SC elections.

THE POOP:

  • Eliminates Municipal Election Commissions and devolves all responsibilities to County Election Boards
  • Expands the powers of the SEC to oversee county boards of elections: it enables the SEC to create standardized processes with which that all county boards must comply
  • Extends compliance requirements of SEC: under the current statute, the SEC and county board of elections must work together to ensure that elections adhere to state and federal laws. This bill expands compliance to require the county election boards to comply with SEC policies, procedures or standardized processes, not just federal or state laws.
  • Requires that the SEC Executive Director “report all suspected violations of the state’s election laws” to the SC Attorney General and appropriate law enforcement agencies
  • Demands that the SEC and Attorney General notify the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House within 24 hours of any complaint that “challenges the validity of an election law, an election policy, or the manner in which an election is conducted”
  • Provides that the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate have an UNCONDITIONAL RIGHT to intervene in a state court proceeding that challenges the validity of an election law or even, the way an election was conducted.
  • Gives the Speaker of the House and Senate President the right to intervene in a FEDERAL court proceeding involving election law or the way an election was conducted and gives them standing; that they may file an amicus brief or provide evidence, even if they are a party to the suit
  • Requires that the SEC Executive Director shall establish methods of audits of election results, and it further defines different types of audits as “risk limiting audits, hand-count audits, and mandates through 3rd party vendors that specialize in election auditing, and ballot reconciliation, or any other method deemed appropriate by the Executive Director.” These audits must be conducted before an election can be certified by the Board of Canvassers.

(This provision is troubling. Risk-limiting audits are worthless. It’s like me telling you that I have $100 in my wallet, consisting of five twenty-dollar bills. You count and say, “yes, you have 5 twenties.” But, what I haven’t told you and what you haven’t determined, is that 2 of those twenties are counterfeit because you haven’t examined the actual bills. The same would be true for hand-counted audits. These audits can’t identify fraudulent ballots, just that the number of ballots equals the number of votes.

Plus, if we continue to have ES&S machines, you will need to find auditors that specialize in cyber audits, not election audits. This whole provision is intended to forestall forensic audits.)

Finally, there are some provisions to clarify voter registration requirements and what constitutes a “domicile.”

MOTIVATION: What is the motivation for this bill? Is it to create uniformity of our election processes across the state to ensure safer elections? Or is the intention political, potentially opening the door for partisan intrusion into our SC elections? BTW, who wrote this legislation? It was introduced by House Speaker Jay Lucas.

BOTTOM-LINE: H. 3444 appears to be a partisan power grab. And the effect of such legislation will be to concentrate the power of the state ruling party in SC elections. (And, it is not the only bill of its kind. Similar bills are being introduced in state legislatures across the country. This seems to be part of a coordinated national effort to change state election laws.)

H. 3444 opens the door to interference by the national parties – the RNC or the DNC, through 1) the consolidated power of the SEC; — controlling standardized election processes state-wide and determining the types of (meaningless) audits to be performed after elections; 2) the reduction of county election board self-determination through SEC oversight; 3) the elimination of the power of local precincts and municipal election boards, and 3) the ability of the Senate President and House Speaker (at the moment both Republican) to wield their influence and use their power to intervene in court cases involving elections. (Remember, the SEC members, and Chairman, are appointed by the Governor.)

This bill is a recipe for disaster.

WARNING TO THOSE WHO WROTE THIS BILL: It will come back to bite you. If you lose power in the state, you will have given the keys to your opponents.

So, in closing, is it really the best you can do in this session? Actually, passing this bill will make things worse in the state regarding election laws. Citizens of the state want fair and transparent elections, not controlled ones.

JUST. SAY. NO.

Main objections to a SC Forensic Audit

Addressing objections to a forensic study of our elections in South Carolina: 8 rebuttals

Here are the main objections we hear about why our state should not proceed with a full forensic audit.

  1. We were already audited. This argument is ridiculous as the SEC conducts only a small hand count of ballots post-election. Note that none of the national elections were audited in SC. For example, in Anderson County, the following races were audited.

Board of Education District 8, precinct Edgewood Station B

In Charleston, it was the Coroner and Lin Bennett’s race in her district. Doing a small hand-count of a few races where you will likely find nothing is not the way to conduct an audit. Why weren’t the major races audited?

  1. We (the GOP) need to stick together
  • The #1 issue with voters is voter integrity. In a recent Rasmussen survey 61.4% OF LIKELY VOTERS BELIEVE ELECTION INTEGRITY ISSUES AFFECTED THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
  • Unfortunately, some of our GOP leaders and elected officials don’t understand the pulse of their electorate.  They aren’t “sticking” with us.
  • We are not going to vote if those machines are still in place. We need to feel like our vote counts and only a full forensic compliance study will do the trick.
  1. “We do elections right in South Carolina”

After months of extensive research, we have found substantial issues that are concerning

  • Based on our analysis of voter roll data we estimate that we have up to 200,000 voters and registrants that should not be on our rolls; note also that our absentee ballot signature were not checked.
Note how high the registrations are relative to the population particularly in the 25-44 and 65+. This number should be in the 60-70% range
  • Abbreviated pcap data shows vote flips across the board and they all occurred in Biden’s favor.
Vote flips in every county in SC
  • Seth Keshel’s heat map shows that we have counties that are highly suspicious for fraud.
The ten counties in red are what we want to focus on.

Look at the increase in votes for a candidate that didn’t campaign except from his basement and who is the least popular president in over a century. By the way, we would say the same thing if it was a Republican. We are agnostic and nonpartisan.

  1. The machines aren’t connected to the internet
  • We have information from US Cybercommand that shows that our computers were and can be connected to the internet. Data was moving to and from our state and over 66% of nation’s data went to China
Here is the final frame of the 3-minute video that shows data transfer from our counties to other destinations
  • Even air-gapped systems can be infiltrated via a “Stuxnet like” virus
  • Over 14,000 ES&S machines were sold with modems. In the Michigan forensic audit found a Telit modem in the motherboard unbeknownst to the county when they opened the motherboard.
  1. Trump won so why bother?

This is not about Trump.

It is not about R or D

It is about our vote. Our vote is our freedom and if we lose that we lose our country.

  1. Audits are too expensive. This is pork spending.
  • Our state took in over $5.3 M in Zuckerburg funds that subsidized our 2020 election.
  • $5M is a small price to pay to reassure the people that their vote truly counts and that our elected officials are elected and not selected. Note that we can’t get access to the machines and ballots unless our government funds the audit.
  1. We don’t need an audit, we need to canvass—canvassing is part of a study; we need time to fund and get the audit completed and we will run out of time in 10 months when the paper ballots are shredded. Furthermore, our resolution that we drafted for a forensice audit INCLUDES canvassing. In addition, it calls for 100% transparency so that We the People see the full report once it is finished.

  1. A question to leave you with. Who is behind the selection of officials? And Why?

Begin with Election 2020

Why the people of South Carolina should care about our elections

Most of us know that future elections – including the most local – are basically useless until the Election 2020 mess is solved and remediated.

At this point, it’s less important to know who did it as opposed to how it was done. We have examples of the methods too. And by recognizing them (universal mail-in ballots, ballot harvesting, counterfeit ballots, ghost voters, duplicate ballots, corrupt officials) we can take action to limit and eliminate them.

Break the habit.

But before we can do all of that, as a state we must admit that we have a problem here. Think of a forensic study of our November 2020 election as an intervention in the addiction of greed. Yes, greed. Money and power. Not for us, the electorate. Rather, to indulge the uniparty ruling class. Just as substance abuse harms the abuser’s family, so does the rulers’ drive to control us harm South Carolina’s people. We pay for their fun.

Interventions are uncomfortable, and they reveal to the abuser his own destructive behavior. If he has a conscience, he can admit his wrongdoing and take steps to correct it. But he may have to be transported to rehab against his will.

So, now, what should be our first move? Demand a thorough forensic compliance study of our entire election process in South Carolina, beginning with November 2020.

What is a compliance study?

On the official election website of South Carolina, audits for every election are proudly touted. But closer inspection reveals that these ‘audits’ are simple recounts, to match the number of votes to the number of voters. This presupposes that each election is fair and honest.

People, we haven’t had a fair and honest election for over 20 years. Listen to Clint Curtis tell about being hired to rig elections. Just because President Trump won in SC, that just means that either it was planned, or he got a big enough landslide to overcome the voting machine algorithms.

Think of the basic difference between a simple audit and a forensic study in this way.

Look at the photo of a tray of ‘apples’. It appears that you have 16 edible apples. They’re all more or less the same shape, though some differ in color.

Count them. You have 16 apples. You can use your apples – or whatever — to make a pie, even if you have to make substitutions and have a different kind of pie. It can be compared to, ‘my candidate won, so it’s all good’. This is the countable, verifiable result of a simple audit. If you count correctly, you’ll always get the outcome you want.

Now examine them closely. You have 9 edible apples, 3 more with rotten spots, a tennis ball, an orange, a lemon, and a decorative marble egg. So, in reality, you have 9 apples. And you may even find a plastic one, in which case you end up with 8 apples. Is that enough to make your pie? Would that even be possible, with the apples you really have? Which candidates actually won?

This is the result of a compliance study, where you compare each ‘apple’ to the standard of ‘perfect, edible, genuine apple’.

Trump won, so what’s the problem?

It’s true, in South Carolina the results put Donald J. Trump in the win column for our state. But maybe the count would have been far more of an advantage in a fair fight. And what about the down-ballot results? Who really won their respective races? Maybe some NASCAR drivers would have something to say about dirty tactics and apparent finish line outcomes. This issue is a nonpartisan one. Citizens of all political affiliations should be concerned if a race was won through nefarious means and their vote was stolen.

All politics is local. And it goes all the way down to the precinct level. A forensic study of the ballots may reveal election rigging in every precinct of a county. Or just some. And that begs the question: Why is there such determined resistance to even the mention of an inspection of our voting system and votes? If there is nothing to hide and if our elections are open, honest, and properly conducted, what’s the harm in a study to reassure us that our individual vote really does count?

What should a compliance study of Election 2020 include?

The following information is adapted from the wording of a resolution demanding the complete forensic audit of select counties in South Carolina for the 2020 election–primarily Lexington, Greenville, and Horry as they were identified as being potentially fraudulent by Seth Keshel’s analysis. This resolution has been adopted by Lexington county and is being considered by additional counties as of this writing. Unfortunately, GOP leadership in some SC counties refuse to even entertain discussion in their county leadership meetings. Why is that?

A study should be public, live-streamed, available to poll watchers, candidates or candidate representatives of any party to witness. None of this business of pizza boxes covering the windows, or fake water main breaks. And the examination should include (but not be limited to):

All paper ballots (from the 2020 General Election and the pre-election system test ballots):
  • Kinematic forensic analysis (utilizing high speed, high definition, digital forensic police cameras, and optical character recognition) of paper ballots
  • Digital forensic analysis of ballot images both computer and human created, and any and all image codes,
  • Forensic analysis of the paper and the print system utilized
  • All possible ballots:
    • How many versions of ballots were there?
    • How many of each version could be counted?
    • How many of each version were counted?
    • How did the digital images of each affect the operation of the election equipment?
    • Was there any forensic variation within each ballot version?
    • Did the handling of ballots alter the effect of the ballot’s interaction with any election equipment?
The tabulator tapes:
  • Kinematic forensic analysis of the tabulator tapes
  • A forensic analysis of their correlation to the equipment used, the software and the paper ballots
  • The machines all equipment and software utilized before during and after the 2020 General Election:
  • Nationally recognized computer forensic analysts to find, extract, analyze and document all electronically stored information found on the counting/tabulator machines, pollbook machines, disability abled machines, routers, thumb drives, SOS laptops, and any other equipment not listed
  • Forensic and kinematic analysis of all equipment used
The networks:
  • Full forensic network, and packet analysis of all connectivity
  • Canvassing of precincts to measure rates of phantom and lost votes
  • Verification of the voter rolls

And all of the results and reports derived from them should be fully transparent and available to all citizens of South Carolina. According to our own state Constitution, Article 2, Sections 1 and 2:

Section 1

“All elections by the people shall be by secret ballot, but the ballots shall not be counted in secret. The right of suffrage, as regulated in this Constitution, shall be protected by laws regulating elections and prohibiting, under adequate penalties, all undue influence from power, bribery, tumult, or improper conduct.”

Section 2

“No power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage in this State.”

Election officials claim that they already conducted audits after the election but apparently they only reviewed the smaller local races in the state and only small samples were hand-counted. From the Freedom of Information Act response that the we received from the SEC, it appears that there was no audit of the federal races!

We do not trust our elected officials.

That’s what this all comes down to. From the time we had electronic voting pushed on us, we haven’t had an honest election. Our own SC state director of the Election Commission (for 18 years!) worked for Unisys Corporation sales from 2000-2003. She was ‘responsible for public sector accounts in GA, SC and NC in the areas of justice and public safety, imaging, and environmental permitting.’ In 2001 Unisys jumped into voting systems with Microsoft and Dell. Guess they saw a great opportunity from the Bush v Gore hanging chad debacle: Hide the cheating electronically.
So, knowing that Marci Andino was responsible for sales to state agencies, and knowing that SC installed its first electronic voting machines around 2004, it’s logical to assume who engineered the sale. And why not hire that person to oversee the Palmetto State’s voting using that system? Makes sense, right? Especially since Andino sits on the ES&S advisory board. No conflict there. And now, she’s climbing the ladder again, resigning her position early to become director of the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center. That should inspire confidence.

Authored by Barbara Williams, Spartanburg county SC Safe Elections member

AZ audit continued… Where do we go from here?

The Maricopa County audit resulted in more questions than answers. There were numerous criminal acts that were committed and it appears that the Arizona AG is poised to indict those involved. The findings indicate that other states need to be evaluated. South Carolina should be particularly in the spotlight as data from our state was allegedly contained on demo hard drives.
Overall, there were 57,734 ballots with major issues that were identified as part of the audit reports.


To wit, according to Patrick Byrne:

  • The day before complying with the subpoena, Maricopa deleted > 1 million election files (each deletion carries 1 federal and state charge);
  • What remained did not reconcile;
    • 255,326 Early Votes have no provenance (they just “appeared”) and another 284,412 have digital images that have been corrupted (with no viable explanation for how that might have happened);
    • There are at least 57,734 ballots with sourcing that is illegal (they were mailed to someone who actually moved out of state 10 years ago, but were voted anyway);
    • There are over 17,000 ballots which are simply photocopies (which is unambiguously illegal);

There were 15 other felonies whose impact on the ballots is impossible to quantify

If we turn a blind eye to all that, Biden wins by 10,800 votes. But if we acknowledge these inconsistencies, we see that Trump won by at least 5 times the margin of victory.

From the Cyber Ninjas report,

• 27, 807 ballots cast from individuals who had moved prior to the election;
• 9,041 more mail ballots returned and recorded than the official number sent;
• 3,432 more ballots cast than the list of people who show as having cast a vote;
• 23,344 people voted via mail-in ballot even though they showed as having moved and no one with that last name shows as living at that address;

  • 2,600 excess duplicate ballots;
  • 2,382 people voted in person after having moved out of the county;
  • 5,047 voted in more than one county for up to 5,295 votes;
  • At least one batch of 50 ballots were tabulated twice;
  • 255,326 Early Votes show in the VM55 that do not have a corresponding EV33 entry;
  • 282 votes from deceased;
  • 393 with incomplete names

Furthermore, it was found that:

• The state did not use the paper that was recommended by manufacturers and that could not be properly verified.
• The ballot printers were not calibrated
• Machines were connected to the internet and cybersecurity protocols were not followed at all. There were no security patches to the operating system since the original purchase (2 years prior to the election) and no antivirus updates were performed since purchase.
• There was intentional overwriting of the files and security logs

We hope that the Arizona AG acts swiftly as this would mean that eventual decertification of the election and possibly create momentum for other states with similar issues to follow suit—think GA and Wisconsin.

Meeting the Experts

On August 21st our team met with our national experts who we have been working with to analyze the election data for our state. It was a great night which started with a speech from state senator Amanda Chase from Virginia who is fighting a trifecta of liberals and though outnumbered is using the power of We the people and affidavits to hold her state legislature accountable. Then Seth Keshel steps through his heat map and the surprising trends that suggest that Biden may not have been quite so popular in the 2020 election both in South Carolina and nationwide. Finally, Dr Frank shows how each county in South Carolina was highly correlated to his calculation of predicted ballots and how each county had the same key or equation that described the ballots cast by age. “That ain’t natural buddy!” We appreciate Captain K, Senator Chase and Dr. Frank’s time that they volunteered and for all the work they have done and continue to do for us. We look forward to seeing them back in the Palmetto state soon. See the full video below.